MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539623756 · doi:10.1214/lnms/1196285406

Forecasting NBA basketball playoff outcomes using the weighted likelihood

2004· book-chapter· en· W1539623756 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes-monograph series · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)BasketballExploitComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceOutcome (game theory)Sample (material)Machine learningMathematicsGeographyComputer securityMathematical economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<!-- *** Custom HTML *** --> Predicting the outcome of a future game between two sports teams poses a challenging problem of interest to statistical scientists as well as the general public. To be effective such prediction must exploit special contextual features of the game. In this paper, we confront three such features and address the need to: (i) use all relevant sample information; (ii) reflect the home court advantage. To do so we use the relevance weighted likelihood of Hu and Zidek (2002). Finally we demonstrate the value of the method by showing how it could have been used to predict the 1996–1997 NBA Final series results. Our relevance likelihood-based method proves to be quite accurate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it